Tweet
OTTAWA CITIZEN
October 20, 2009 Tuesday
CANADA
The Citizen article asserts that demonstrations were staged "by
Armenians opposed to a rapprochement." None of the sides is against
"rapprochement" but what makes the agreement portentous is Turkey's
preconditions contained therein.
With regard to opening their "shared borders," Armenia never closed
down its side of the border. Turkey, in violation of international law,
closed its side in 1993.
Turkey's preconditions for "normalizing relations" are: first, to
recognize the current frontiers with Turkey; second, cessation of
efforts for international recognition of the Armenian genocide and
ensuing claims and third, to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis to
the satisfaction of Azerbaijan.
In essence, legalizing the current frontiers means legalizing the
usurpation of the larger portion of Armenian homelands: territories
with unresolved status that are still subject to jurisdiction under
international treaties.
Recognition of the Armenian genocide promotes mutual confidence in
bilateral relations and prevention of similar crimes in the future.
Moreover, it entails territorial and financial restitutions. The
Turkish proposal for the creation of a commission of historians
to establish the veracity of the Armenian genocide is labeled as a
smokescreen by experts. It degrades a historical reality to the level
of dubiousness.
As for the formerly autonomous territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, it
declared its independence in 1991 under self-determination rights
following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Regrettably, Turkey's
lopsided stance in favor of Azerbaijan is not conducive to a solution.
Finally, the article states that "the accord will likely rekindle
other memories" and reflects on what those memories are.
It is true that there were terrorist operations in the past that
nobody condones. Mainstream organizations had no role in them. It
is common knowledge that they ended almost 25 years ago. The article
surprisingly devotes a good part of half a column to this long-dead
"phenomenon" while compressing the root of the matter, "genocide,"
into a few lines, an approach which is incongruous, to say the least.
We are now in a wait-and-see mode.
October 20, 2009 Tuesday
CANADA
The Citizen article asserts that demonstrations were staged "by
Armenians opposed to a rapprochement." None of the sides is against
"rapprochement" but what makes the agreement portentous is Turkey's
preconditions contained therein.
With regard to opening their "shared borders," Armenia never closed
down its side of the border. Turkey, in violation of international law,
closed its side in 1993.
Turkey's preconditions for "normalizing relations" are: first, to
recognize the current frontiers with Turkey; second, cessation of
efforts for international recognition of the Armenian genocide and
ensuing claims and third, to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis to
the satisfaction of Azerbaijan.
In essence, legalizing the current frontiers means legalizing the
usurpation of the larger portion of Armenian homelands: territories
with unresolved status that are still subject to jurisdiction under
international treaties.
Recognition of the Armenian genocide promotes mutual confidence in
bilateral relations and prevention of similar crimes in the future.
Moreover, it entails territorial and financial restitutions. The
Turkish proposal for the creation of a commission of historians
to establish the veracity of the Armenian genocide is labeled as a
smokescreen by experts. It degrades a historical reality to the level
of dubiousness.
As for the formerly autonomous territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, it
declared its independence in 1991 under self-determination rights
following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Regrettably, Turkey's
lopsided stance in favor of Azerbaijan is not conducive to a solution.
Finally, the article states that "the accord will likely rekindle
other memories" and reflects on what those memories are.
It is true that there were terrorist operations in the past that
nobody condones. Mainstream organizations had no role in them. It
is common knowledge that they ended almost 25 years ago. The article
surprisingly devotes a good part of half a column to this long-dead
"phenomenon" while compressing the root of the matter, "genocide,"
into a few lines, an approach which is incongruous, to say the least.
We are now in a wait-and-see mode.